LOS ANGELES—A federal district judge last week certified a lawsuit brought by former Vixen contract performer Kenzie Anne against Vixen Media Group (VMG) as meeting the standard to proceed as a proposed class action.
U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu of the Central District of California affirmed the class action by Anne and her potential co-plaintiffs last Friday, April 24, and ordered mediation with a set date of June 20.
"Because the Court has already determined that common issues predominate, the Court finds that adjudicating the matter as a single 'class action is superior to other available methods of fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy,'" Hsu wrote in the order.
The chances of mediation resulting in a mutual settlement after class certification are slim.
"We plan to attend the Court-ordered June 20, 2026, mediation in good faith to resolve the matter on a class and representative basis in a fashion that fairly compensates class members," said Anne's attorney, Sarah Cohen, in an email to AVN. "We are also prepared for the matter not to resolve at mediation and thus are simultaneously preparing for trial."
As AVN previously reported, Anne in April 2023 filed a total of 10 causes for action against the defendants of case—Vixen-affiliated firms VXN Group, Strike 3 Holdings, General Media Systems, executive producer Mike Miller, and at least 100 unnamed "John and Jane Does."
Judge Hsu sided with the defendants in September 2023, granting a motion to dismiss nine of the original 10 causes of action. However, litigation has since evolved to the point of multiple amended complaints collectively arguing that Anne and the class plaintiffs were entitled under the law to employee status rather than being independent contractors.
Being an employee would extend labor protections for those engaged in the type of labor described in work contracts.
As is customary for most adult studios and platforms used for content monetization, performers essentially function as their own small businesses, as is the case in other mainstream entertainment and creative industries.
Anne's attorneys, who were named as the co-counsel of the plaintiff class, were able to convince Hsu that she was misclassified as an independent contractor as a means to "avoid paying wages for hours ... worked on off-set/pre-shoot preparation work."
Preparation work, as defined by the plaintiffs, covers prep like make-up, STD testing, other grooming, travel costs and other activities necessary for shooting.
The class certification now includes VMG performers who are classified as independent contractors in California under applicable model agreements and other contracts executed between April 20, 2020 and April 24, 2026.
"The proposed class is made up of between 656 and 767 performers," notes Hsu, referring to a declaration filed by a plaintiffs' expert witness who projected the value of a potential penalty against Vixen in the millions of dollars.
Note that a class action can still be decertified if discovery later shows that the actual number of the proposed members of the suing class is smaller or falls below levels necessary for a combined class. Sometimes larger estimates don't guarantee certification will remain.
Cohen told AVN that the legal team is pleased with the certification and looks forward to advancing the case on behalf of future members of the class.
"We appreciate Judge Hsu’s careful consideration of the issues and believe the ruling was fair and well-reasoned," Cohen said. "We look forward to advancing this now-certified class action through trial on behalf of ... [Anne] ... and the class members we represent."
Vixen is represented by Trey D. Brown, in-house counsel for VMG; Brian S. Ginter of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP; Christian W. Waugh of Waugh PLLC; and, formerly, Brad S. Kane of the Kane Law Firm.
Corey Silverstein of Silverstein Legal, which shares VMG as a client, told AVN on behalf of the company that the case is not a forgone conclusion, especially on the front of class certification.
"There has been some apparent celebration by Plaintiffs’ counsel, but that response is misplaced," Silverstein said. "Class certification is a procedural mechanism—it is not a determination on the merits and certainly not a final outcome."
He continued, "Courts routinely grant certification to facilitate efficient case management, but such rulings do not establish liability or endorse the underlying claims. That point is underscored here, where the court acknowledged that the named plaintiff may qualify as an exempt professional actor."
Kenzie Anne herself also expressed that she was pleased with the certification, posting to X, "Kenzie Anne vs Vixen is class action certified...Today, 5 years ago to the date my first Vixen debut came out. ... Now [you] guys know why I quit, I’ve been in court working on somethin I couldn’t talk about."
Silverstein cautioned against this seeming interpretion of the class certification ruling as a victory.
"Moreover, class certification is inherently tentative," he noted. "It remains subject to reconsideration, potential interlocutory appeal, and can be modified or even vacated as the litigation evolves."
He added, "Framing certification as a substantive victory is simply inaccurate. Defendants will continue to vigorously challenge both the certification and the claims themselves, including through summary judgment, which may ultimately dispose of the case entirely."
"The case history suggests some abnormalities including the substitution of plaintiff’s counsel, an order denying plaintiff’s motion for costs and fees, and defendants' motion for terminating sanctions, which has not yet been decided," Silverstein concluded.
"Ultimately, the fact that plaintiff is celebrating such a routine decision suggests the case has not been easy for [the] plaintiff and much is still to be decided."
